Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:19 +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > > Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> > > > when you build it.
> > >
> > > How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
> > > form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API?
> > More irrelevancy. Using an API is just a method for utilising part of
> > another work. It may or may not be a derivative. This is just a
> > variation on the 'linker' noise.
> Maybe, but then you should have your own, non-GPLed implementation of
> these APIs agains which you're compiling your code. Ie. glibc has its
> own collection of kernel headers.
> Now, what we observe here, is that a GPL-incompatible code is
> explicitely compiled agains headers (.class files for that matter)
> that are GPLed.
Which GPLed class files is Eclipse "compiled against"? ("import
java.util;" does not count: java.util identifies an API with
> Even according to Linus such "use" is not permitted
Linux header files are different from Java packages in a number of
One difference is that C header files, especially those from Linux,
contain function bodies as well as function declarations; Java
packages define a functional interface but do not insert expressive
content in a file that imports the package.
Another difference is that Linux is the only implementation of many
functions; using those means that you require Linux specifically, and
cannot use an alternative such as the FreeBSD kernel.
> It seems though you could compile your code against another set of
> headers (.class files), that does not cause license conflict and it
> would be OK.
> We do not have to push interpretation of GPL as far as to claim
> copyrightability of the interfaces. Using GPLed implementation of
> such interface to create your work does however create a derivative
Please cite law to support this hypothesis.